Fail Quotes

[Lord T Hawkeye]

[yt]dLA3_xch478[/yt]

I think it's high time I made a video addressing this whole Somalia nonsense.

[MrBogosity]

[yt]dLA3_xch478[/yt]

I think it's high time I made a video addressing this whole Somalia nonsense.

And, oh look, he disabled ratings. What a surprise.

Looking forward to that video, Hawk.

[Travis Retriever]

And, oh look, he disabled ratings. What a surprise.

Looking forward to that video, Hawk.

Seconded.  On both counts.

Also, the comments aren't much better.
One really despicable one:
"Hilarious! My ultimatum to libertarians still stands: Put your money where your mouth is and move to a country lacking a historically strong central government, try to lay down your roots there, and put your libertarianism into practice in a way that won't reduce the rest of us to collateral damage/lab rat status. That way, once their ideas have failed the rest of us can sit by and laugh. I know I will." --Activeassholeonpills

Where do I even begin?

[Ibrahim90]

Seconded.  On both counts.

Also, the comments aren't much better.
One really despicable one:
"Hilarious! My ultimatum to libertarians still stands: Put your money where your mouth is and move to a country lacking a historically strong central government, try to lay down your roots there, and put your libertarianism into practice in a way that won't reduce the rest of us to collateral damage/lab rat status. That way, once their ideas have failed the rest of us can sit by and laugh. I know I will." --Activeassholeonpills

Where do I even begin?

I like how he isn't actually addressing a thing we say....

[MrBogosity]

And now he's blocked me from responding, the coward.

[AnCap Dave]

And now he's blocked me from responding, the coward.

He put this in the comments of his video:

shanedk has been put into time out/nap time like the petulent child he is so he won't be getting back to you on this for some time.

[MrBogosity]

Gotta love the Failz, though:

Dishonest? Yeah you moron you need towers but putting up a tower is easer than stringing thousands of miles of physical phone lines, go try it if you don't think so.

Yeah, because an individual cell phone tower can cover thousands of miles...

[MrBogosity]

And then there's our old friend billburns2:

How is Sharia Law any different from the DROs that AnCaps are so fond of?

I responded: "Without being an AnCap, and therefore not feeling I am in any proper position to defend them, I think there's one difference that should be obvious even to a moronic cultlist like you have repeatedly proven yourself to be:

"DROs are voluntary; Shariah Law isn't."

Then he responded (emphasis mine):

If you are a non muslim Sharia Law is entirely voluntary, just as a DRO is voluntary if you don't live in the areas covered by it

You really should look this stuff up before demonstrating your ignorance.

(Remember that: Shariah Law is voluntary for NON-Muslims.)

Quick summary of the next few exchanges: I pointed out how a) this still sucks for Muslim women who get stoned, and b) it means it's actually not voluntary; it has to be voluntary for EVERYBODY, otherwise you've just created a privileged class to whom the law doesn't apply.

njanovic1980 then brought up the same point, and I said: "I've already responded to this: this makes non-Muslims a privileged class. It's WRONG. I don't know why you keep bringing it up as if it refutes something."

And here comes billburns2 again:

"I've already responded to this"

LIAR. So now you despise Sharia because non muslims have the freedom not to subscribe to it- but you like DROs because you have the freedom not to subscribe to them.

More double standards, more of your pathetic evasions

No, I made it clear I despise Shariah law because of the people--Muslims or otherwise--who DIDN'T have the freedom to opt out. How is this possibly a double-standard? Of course, he didn't post this until I had already been blocked...

Of course, he already had all sorts of fail, like:

Sharia Law is the closest thing in existence to a DRO. You can't condemn one and praise the other

Really? Closest thing in existence? What's www.judge.me then?

[Travis Retriever]

And then there's our old friend billburns2:

I responded: "Without being an AnCap, and therefore not feeling I am in any proper position to defend them, I think there's one difference that should be obvious even to a moronic cultlist like you have repeatedly proven yourself to be:

"DROs are voluntary; Shariah Law isn't."

Then he responded (emphasis mine):

(Remember that: Shariah Law is voluntary for NON-Muslims.)

Quick summary of the next few exchanges: I pointed out how a) this still sucks for Muslim women who get stoned, and b) it means it's actually not voluntary; it has to be voluntary for EVERYBODY, otherwise you've just created a privileged class to whom the law doesn't apply.

njanovic1980 then brought up the same point, and I said: "I've already responded to this: this makes non-Muslims a privileged class. It's WRONG. I don't know why you keep bringing it up as if it refutes something."

And here comes billburns2 again:

No, I made it clear I despise Shariah law because of the people--Muslims or otherwise--who DIDN'T have the freedom to opt out. How is this possibly a double-standard? Of course, he didn't post this until I had already been blocked...

Of course, he already had all sorts of fail, like:

Really? Closest thing in existence? What's www.judge.me then?

Good lord, the comparison between DROs and Sharia is just sad.  It's like he just picked the stuff out of a straw.

BTW, Shane, since I'm logged onto your forum before YouTube, I should let you know that the link I posted in the asshat's video was a link to Hawkeye's reply to it--the same one I posted in fav quotes.  Just so you know.

[AnCap Dave]

I can't I actually found someone who tried to play devil's advocate and try to defend the cop...but I did.

Before I begin, may I remind everyone that I find the actions of the officer disgusting, and in no way as a human being am I agreeing with what he did. Therefore, I am making the argument exclusively from a devil's advocate point of view, in the manner of which someone familiar with or the lawyer himself of the charged officer may argue rationally. With that in mind, let us begin.

OK, according to this article, it is stated that the officer is under "criminal investigation". Let us think about what this means for a second. This case is no longer within the confines of civil law, where a person should be compensated for misconduct on part of a person or organisation, but it has entered the sphere of criminal law, where the actions are defined as crimes. And if you would forgive my scathing reading on the issue, an action is a crime when it constitutes a simultaneous existence of both actus reus (a guilty action) and mens rea (a guilty mind, or intent).

By extension, the prosecution would have to prove that officer had an intent on striking the victim in the stomach, to which the defense may argue, and not without reason, that it merely represents a bell curve in the manner in which police officers react when in a difficult and aggressive situation. Bear in mind that the officer did report that the woman was "moving aggressively", but I will go into detail about the circumstances of the event later on.

Of course, the prosecution may not decide to accuse the officer of assault (elements of which were described in the previous paragraph) and instead choose to go with a charge that includes criminal recklessness or criminal negligence. Now, forgive my use of Wikipedia, but I believe it best expresses the difference between criminal recklessness and criminal negligence

The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' , where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation.

Therefore, if the defense can prove that the officer was not familiar with all the elements of the situation, it means that he wasn't able to foresee (and by extension, ignore any plausible outcomes) any events, thereby eliminating mens rea from the equation of the crime.

So let us analyze the situation for a moment. The officer is found in a tense situation where he has to put down an individual relating to a crime of domestic violence. According to the officer, the woman was "moving aggressively", and yes pregnant women can be angry too. It was dark, the woman was "wearing a large shirt", and in a country where most of the population is obese, is it truly strange that a person may mistake a pregnant woman for obese, given sufficient elements? Furthermore, do you know the force in kick? He certainly could have made far more damage then he did, yet the fetus although sick and born with C-section, the baby and mother are healthy. This may indicate that the officer performed without intent of harm, as the kick would not have harmed a normal individual, merely knock them to the ground.

Bear in mind that these are the woman's statements in the news

"I think he really just didn't want me asking him any questions, questioning him, and when I did question him is when he kicked me," Dozier told Channel 2.

"I was upset because I couldn't believe an officer would kick me, with my child in my stomach," she said.

So she didn't deny the accusations of the officer, which were officially filed that she was moving aggressively, but states that she was indeed upset, and she did confront the officer. Her statements merely give the actions described by the officer context, not negation.

So without clear intent, without a certain evidence that the officer had clear indication of the facts and elements, this cannot stand as a criminal case. This is at best a civil issue, where the woman should be compensated, and the officer warned that more is expected in his performance as an officer.

This is probably what Internal affairs thought as well. This is no way a criminal affair, and if there is a civil lawsuit, payment may be appropriated to the woman, and the officer warned. And while accusing the woman of higher crimes then the person they were arresting is a bit too much, but then again, as police officers they were responsible to do so under the law as well. It is up to the prosecution to decide if there is enough grounds to accept the case or not, and from what I have read, the police later dropped the case.

Anyway, that is all I have. Please bear in mind that in no way do I agree with this pig. I am merely stating an argumentative point that may be used in a trial.

[Ibrahim90]

And then there's our old friend billburns2:

I responded: "Without being an AnCap, and therefore not feeling I am in any proper position to defend them, I think there's one difference that should be obvious even to a moronic cultlist like you have repeatedly proven yourself to be:

"DROs are voluntary; Shariah Law isn't."

Then he responded (emphasis mine):

(Remember that: Shariah Law is voluntary for NON-Muslims.)

Quick summary of the next few exchanges: I pointed out how a) this still sucks for Muslim women who get stoned, and b) it means it's actually not voluntary; it has to be voluntary for EVERYBODY, otherwise you've just created a privileged class to whom the law doesn't apply.

njanovic1980 then brought up the same point, and I said: "I've already responded to this: this makes non-Muslims a privileged class. It's WRONG. I don't know why you keep bringing it up as if it refutes something."

And here comes billburns2 again:

No, I made it clear I despise Shariah law because of the people--Muslims or otherwise--who DIDN'T have the freedom to opt out. How is this possibly a double-standard? Of course, he didn't post this until I had already been blocked...

Of course, he already had all sorts of fail, like:

Really? Closest thing in existence? What's www.judge.me then?

wow...just...wow.

the point of the matter is, the two are definitely not the same: "Sharia law" (which is really a series of different law codes*) is a religious practice, meant for people of the Muslim faith when dealing with each other, and in some cases, non Muslims (like in interest). DRO's have no religious or ideological implication. further, DRO's IIRC aren't based on religious books or the opinions of clerics, who shouldn't even exist according to the Qur'an itself (sorta like Christians calling people "Moron", even though the Bible says not to).

*in Sunni Islam for example, there are four jurisprudences, and Shi'ism has IIRC has half a dozen or more schools. then you have Ibadis, Ismaelis (the Agha Khan people), as well as several extinct versions (the azariqa (lit. "the blues"), assassins, etc.). There's even a reform movement that is "Qur'an only" that is hugely anti-stoning and in some cases for gay rights (there's this one Lesbian lady who is an example).

[AnCap Dave]

.....It continues.

If moral or ethical justification was made solely on the principle of legal verdict, then you would be correct. However, I did not make that claim specifically, and if anything, I failed to explain the only plausible conclusion from my legalistic explanation, which I admit was a shortcoming. That is, while the legal system if biased and inaccurate, the legal principle on the other hand, offers us insight into certain actions devoid of any emotional involvement. That is why, to name one example, Bin Laden should have been, if the courts decide, executed on the foundation of a prosecutor's case, not a nation's sentiments.

Essentially, we cannot even consider or make out the facts of this case to even fit the 2 dimensional legal frame, yet we are willing to bring 3 dimensional moral judgement. As he said it was dark and stressful situation, and it is a matter of an opinion if a person can detect a pregnant stomach under a large clothing. I believe that there are even people on this forum that can attest to at least one instance where they wondered if the woman was pregnant or simply obese.

As a final point, rarely does anyone know the stress of being a police officer, and sooner or later, any officer, even the most experienced ones will most likely use excessive force in relation to the situation at least once. Police officers are human as well, and there are bound to be mistakes. Of course, in that context that doesn't absolve the officer from responsibility; but as I said, to make this more clear, this falls in the category of a civil dispute, rather then a criminal investigation, as a legal mirror to the context and meaning of the officer's actions.


The problem with this argument is that it goes both ways. There is a distinct possibility that the woman lied concerning her action. But even more so, observe her statements again. Nowhere has she directly denied the police officer's accusations, and merely stating what she was doing when she was kicked. She states that she was "asking questions", as if a person cannot yell and scream and approach aggressively while screaming curse words, and at the same time throw in a question now an then.

Also, as the article said, he was at the center of an investigation regarding 2 other cases, but not convicted. Of course, that doesn't mean that we should ignore it, but we should place them in their proper context. It does indicate a pattern, but at the same time, it is insufficient to assume the facts of this case and derive judgment, moral or otherwise, on the basis of this pattern.

[Goaticus]

As a final point, rarely does anyone know the stress of being a police officer, and sooner or later, any officer, even the most experienced ones will most likely use excessive force in relation to the situation at least once.

Exchange police officer with anyone else and see if this person likes the idea of the carte blanche they just gave people to use violence. Also from actually knowing a few cops I can tell you most of them admit being a cop is actually easy most of the time. One cop told me one of the reasons some of them over react is that their job is plain boring 99% of the time and they expected it to be non-stop shoot outs and car chases from what they see on TV. He wasn't making excuses, he's a Detective trying to explain why he thinks most of his co-workers are wastes of skin.

[Ibrahim90]

If moral or ethical justification was made solely on the principle of legal verdict, then you would be correct. However, I did not make that claim specifically, and if anything, I failed to explain the only plausible conclusion from my legalistic explanation, which I admit was a shortcoming. That is, while the legal system if biased and inaccurate, the legal principle on the other hand, offers us insight into certain actions devoid of any emotional involvement. That is why, to name one example, Bin Laden should have been, if the courts decide, executed on the foundation of a prosecutor's case, not a nation's sentiments.

and yet, it doesn't change the fact that the incident shouldn't have occurred. The policeman is just as accountable for murder or assault as a normal person.

Essentially, we cannot even consider or make out the facts of this case to even fit the 2 dimensional legal frame,

yes we can: the copper committed assault for no real reason. Assault is illegal, therefore, he is guilty. is it really this hard?

yet we are willing to bring 3 dimensional moral judgement. As he said it was dark and stressful situation, and it is a matter of an opinion if a person can detect a pregnant stomach under a large clothing. I believe that there are even people on this forum that can attest to at least one instance where they wondered if the woman was pregnant or simply obese.

that is irrelevant; who the fuck gave that policeman the right to kick anyone, just for crying? why do you think that whether the person is pregnant or not matters?

As a final point, rarely does anyone know the stress of being a police officer, and sooner or later, any officer, even the most experienced ones will most likely use excessive force in relation to the situation at least once.

by that logic, I could argue that anyone could commit assault if stressed. and no, the Police aren't that stressed; it's not as if they're on Omaha or sth.

Police officers are human as well, and there are bound to be mistakes. Of course, in that context that doesn't absolve the officer from responsibility; but as I said, to make this more clear, this falls in the category of a civil dispute, rather then a criminal investigation, as a legal mirror to the context and meaning of the officer's actions.

what the fuck? so assault is now a civil dispute? is this guy on drugs?

The problem with this argument is that it goes both ways. There is a distinct possibility that the woman lied concerning her action. But even more so, observe her statements again. Nowhere has she directly denied the police officer's accusations, and merely stating what she was doing when she was kicked. She states that she was "asking questions", as if a person cannot yell and scream and approach aggressively while screaming curse words, and at the same time throw in a question now an then.

because that is irrelevent! you don't just kick people! it's not like she was shooting at him or attacking him physically. so what if she was cursing or not?

Also, as the article said, he was at the center of an investigation regarding 2 other cases, but not convicted. Of course, that doesn't mean that we should ignore it, but we should place them in their proper context. It does indicate a pattern, but at the same time, it is insufficient to assume the facts of this case and derive judgment, moral or otherwise, on the basis of this pattern.

here's the context: these cops think their above the law and are assaulting, or even murdering, people; and even if that wasn't the case, it does change the fact that he committed an act of physical assault. is this too much for this guy, or is a Homo erectus possessed of greater thinking power?!

[Travis Retriever]

In light of recent events, I decided to check out billburns2's profile.

Shane, Hawkeye, get ready to laugh:

"All forms of civil discussion are welcome, particularly if they reference background material which I might not have seen. You are also entitled to voice your own opinions. What you aren't entitled to do is use my channel as a soapbox for your ideology. Please avoid multiple comment threads or rants comprising of 12 back-to-back comments. If you have a lot to say then make a video." (bold for emphasis; not his; mine)

But wait, there's more!

"Any comment that includes variations of the following will have me reaching for the block button:
"You don't understand simple economics"
- Yes I do, I just may not agree with your school of economic theory.

"You are clearly too stupid to grasp the concept of...(yadda yadda)"
- Save your ad homs and other forms of conversational terrorism for someone else."

Billburns2:  slaying libertarians via our huge fits of laughter at him since 2009.